CBI men in Mattoo case were indicted in another case too

On July 17 this year, the Special Judge (women torture and dowry court) in Kota, Rajasthan, was severely critical of the CBI for lapses in the investigation of the alleged murder of 17-year-old Neelu Singh Rana, daughter of a senior government official, Zila Singh Rana.

In fact, so critical was the judge that he directedthe CBI to replace Investigating Officer Ohri to ensure that “impartial and fair investigation is conducted.”

The order to move him out of the case was passed on an application filed on behalf of the accused, Ankush Wadhwa, then a 16-year-old.

Ankush’s father, owner of Nirala Dant Manjan, is a well-known businessman. Ankush is in prison having been denied bail by both the sessions court and the Jaipur High Court. He has now gone to the Supreme Court asking for bail. Charges have yet to be framed in the case.

There are uncanny similarities not only between the two cases but also in the laspes of the CBI.

The facts of the Kota case, according to court documents: On May 20, 1998, Neelu and Ankush had been seen going together in Ankush’s Cielo around 1.30 p.m. About three hours later, the car was seen in an “accidental condition” on the side of the Daradevi-Motipur road. Ankush was found injured and bleeding, in the driver’s seat, his head resting against the steering wheel.

The girl’s severelybruised body was found at a distance from the car, the door on her side was open. The cause of her death, as revealed by the post mortem, was coma due to a head injury. But there were multiple injuries on her arms, shoulder, legs and her wrist. And “burns and peeling of skin on leg and thighs” according to the post mortem.

No definite opinion was given on rape though the girl’s hymen was found intact. Her vaginal swab was taken for chemical analysis.

An FIR was filed and Ankush was named the main accused along with “some unknown persons.” The case was transferred to the CBI on June 6, 1998, after a Rajasthan police personnel, Inspector Dwarka Prasad, was suspected to be trying to “plant evidence” to show the incident as an accident.

The CBI filed its chargesheet on August 17, 1998, which the defence felt was based on incomplete investigation. The results of the DNA have still not been submitted to the court. They are reportedly yet to come back from Hyderabad.

The Special Judge observed seriouslapses on Ohri’s part:

* Ohri had conducted no investigation “with regard to these unknown persons” mentioned in the FIR. Surprisingly, the CBI didn’t even seek permission for further investigation.

* The presence of “other accused” is mentioned in the statement of prime witness Zile Singh (who saw the two in the car) but there’s no mention of this in the CBI’s chargesheet. “These persons have not been nominated and it seems that no investigation with regard to these other accused persons has been made by the IO,” the judge said.

* “It is not correct to comment on the conduct of the investigating agency at this stage,” the judge said, “but further investigation should now be conducted by another officer so that (the) correct picture can be presented before the court and it can be said that true and fair investigation is conducted in this case.”

Defence counsel Vikas Pahwa has said in his petition to the Supreme Court that the CBI did not give any explanation for the injuries sustained byAnkush and also did not mention the correct nature and extent of the injuries in the chargesheet.

When asked why no action was taken against Ohri, CBI joint director R M Singh, supervising both the Mattoo and Neelu cases, told The Indian Express: “We removed him from the case and replaced him with another IO.”